.
To set the scene the Canon EOS 1Ds Mark III has 21.1 MP and has an MSRP of $6,999. The Nikon D3x has 24.5 MP and has an MSRP of $8000. Of course both those cameras are full framers so are you surprised to see that Sigma are suggesting an MSRP of $9,700 for the SD1 (press release) which, after a nine month wait, is expected to be available next month?

I guess a lot depends on whether you buy into Sigma's claim that the SD1 is a 46 MP DSLR (APS-C sensor, by the way). Personally I think that claim is disingenuous but it doesn't really matter as anybody forking out that sort of cash either won't miss that cash too much or is technically savvy enough to know that the SD1 can only resolve detail equivalent to about 15 MP. Yes, it can theoretically out-resolve even the D3x under certain lighting conditions but there will also be situations where the 1Ds3 can out-resolve the SD1.

Maybe Sigma think that the Foveon look will be reason enough to command a premium price but it's for sure that they aren't going after the mass market. Perhaps that's a good thing...

I think Sigma are entirely justified in marketing the SD1 as 45MP, as I've long maintained the bayer pattern sensor effective MP counts are marketing over-inflated but only tolerable since everyone does it. Assuming the sensor designs have well optimised anti-aliasing filters, the 15x3MP should be a lot better than the D3x for resolution under most light, it is the D3x and other bayer sensor cameras that requires certain assumptions to get close to their inherently limited potential.

Putting that aside, the price does seem excessive, although of course we don't know how hard it is to manufacture the sensor used. As much as I want one to play with, that puts it out of serious consideration. I would have put an upper acceptable bound at current entry level full frame camera levels (D700/5D2), with a target street price comparable to high end crop (7D) for me to bite.

I'll have to do what everyone else will probably do and just pixel peep other people's samples when they're around.

To set the scene the Canon EOS 1Ds Mark III has 21.1 MP and has an MSRP of $6,999. The Nikon D3x has 24.5 MP and has an MSRP of $8000. Of course both those cameras are full framers so are you surprised to see that Sigma are suggesting an MSRP of $9,700 for the S2 (press release) which, after a nine month wait, is expected to be available next month?

That should say "Sigma are suggesting an MSRP of $9,700 for the SD1"...The S2 is a Fuji!

I guess a lot depends on whether you buy into Sigma's claim that the S2 is a 46 MP DSLR (APS-C sensor, by the way).

Fuji never claimed that the S2 had 46mp...The SD1 certainly has though.

Personally I think that claim is disingenuous but it doesn't really matter as anybody forking out that sort of cash either won't miss that cash too much or is technically savvy enough to know that the SD2 can only resolve detail equivalent to about 15 MP.

Do you have a time machine? The SD1 is'nt even out yet but you are referring to the SD2 already!

Yes, it can theoretically out-resolve even the D3x under certain lighting conditions but there will also be situations where the 1Ds3 can out-resolve the SD2.

How can you know that when there is no Sigma SD2!

Maybe Sigma think that the Foveon look will be reason enough to command a premium price but it's for sure that they aren't going after the mass market. Perhaps that's a good thing...

Bob.

Lets face it, Sigma are committing commercial suicide!...The price they have quoted for the SD1 is utterly rediculous!
The SD1 is a crop format DSLR, and irrespective of whether it has ultra high resolution or not, no one in their right mind it going to buy one at that price.
In fact, I dought they will be able to sell a single unit at that price...And I really hope they cant, so they can wise up and see how bloody stupid they have been. Everyone has been expecting a price close to the 7D but now its priced close to the 645D!!!...Would you buy an SD1 when you can have a 645D for the same price?
And this is from someone who has two Sigma DSLR's btw.

.
I suppose that Sigma might argue that the cost of an SD1 plus a reasonable selection of lenses is going to be a good deal lower than, say, a Pentax or Mamiya medium format camera and the lenses that would go with either of those. But I can't see many MF shooters, or aspiring MF shooters, deciding that the SD1 system is going to be the better option in the studio. Maybe I've just got blinkered vision as well as a total lack of familiarity about what makes a really good studio camera.

So if Sigma don't expect the SD1 to be competing for sales with the MF crowd then that begs the question of exactly who is the camera for? At that price, or even at half that price, I can't see many Canon, Nikon et al owners ditching their systems so that leaves current SD owners and those who like to go their own way and have the spare cash to indulge their wishes. Neither market is likely to be very large (only my guess) so I suppose Sigma has priced the camera as well as it could to try and recoup the development costs of the new Foveon sensor. Let's hope the reviews are positive, though I can't see many reviewers finding time to spend with the camera when that time could be spent reviewing kit which will bring more page hits to their sites.

Yes, I was truly shocked when I saw the price yesterday but at least Sigma has maintained faith with the SD community and produced a new and better camera. Leica R-system owners are still waiting to see if their lenses will ever find a new home on a body designed to make the most of them and I don't think many of them are holding their collective breath in that regard.

Actually Sigma have delivered a massive slap in the face for the Sigma community, as well as a few good knees in the groin to boot because from the day the news of the SD1's existance became public we have been lead to believe that the SD1 would cost about the same as a canon 7D...Sigma USA's CEO said as much in a now notorious interview.
Pros, amateurs, Sigma fans and potential buyers used to other brands alike were all able to make plans and save money with that certain knowledge of price in mind. Now we discover that it will cost 500% more than we were told!!! Esentially it means that not a single member of the Sigma community can afford an SD1 and we have all been excluded from ownership!
Yesterday was a very sad day indeed. At $2000 a pop Sigma could probably sell at least 10000 SD1 units in the early days after the release alone and many thousands more lens units to fit them to boot. At $10000 a pop I predict they will only shift 1-5 units period and no more than a handfull of lenses...You dont need to be a genius to decide which pricing strategy would make them more profit! I can only assume that Yamaki San must have been drinking too much Eau De Daichii and gone stark staring mad to think this was a sensible marketing decision.

.
Am I right in thinking that the SD15 hits the streets almost immediately at 2/3rds the MSRP? That would imply the SD1 being available at under $7000. Still a humongous amount of cash when compared to the 7D, though, so I can sympathise deeply given the expectations that had been raised.

The comparison to medium format I don't get, since to me one of the selling points of medium format is simply the bigger sensor size, and corresponding look it can achieve over smaller sensors. The other half is the resolution. I suppose there is a partial argument there, but as much "better" the SD1 might be over other typical APS-C sensors, I'm not sure the effective improvement in resolution is going to worry medium format.

The price... like Leica, I think there are enough people out there with big enough pockets for them to shift a fair handful. The economics of balancing quantity vs quality are always difficult, but I wonder if they could have gone a bit more to quantity in order to build up the community.

I think that something went wrong at Sigma..or rather..they have found themselves in a bit of a pickle. Pricing decisions are usually formed by the tension created between:
- Cost: production, shipping, marketing, maintenance etc.
- Market: an assessment of what they think it can command
- Profitability: the margin they need to break even and make money for the shareholders
- Strategy (somewhat derived from the market consideration): where they wish to go and position themselves and their longer term product development tactics
- The company's economics: i.e. can they sacrifice on the margin to improve on their strategic positioning, for example

This all translates into a range:
- What they NEED as a minimum price
- What they SHOULD get to maintain a targeted margin
- What they CAN price it at in the market
- What they WANT to position the unit at, in terms of "perceived" value

Given the total shock of the community and the earlier indications (e.g. it was never disputed and commented on, when it was suggested it's a unit for the "prosumer" market, that it was intended to be in the Canon 7D bracket etc. etc.), I find it indicated, that Sigma are "caught" and/or "confused" in terms of their ranges, as indicated above.

I personally do not subscribe to the notion suggested in some communities, that it's a marketing ploy to create buzz or somehow raise expectations by suggesting an initial high price at first, just to increase "perceived value" or give a sense of a "great deal" by then lowering it to a lesser - but still very high - price. Neither such strategies are likely to be successful. Dropping the price from 9.7K to 4.5K is likely going to create doubts about the longevity and support or the unit. It also eliminates the real pros, since they are less likely to have trust in any pro-service support that this bracket require. The actual "prosumers" are going to be more suspicious and may wonder if this model is a "dud" that Sigma will drop, because it's just not profitable enough..

Whether I'm completely off in my random speculations here or not, one thing I'm certain of: it never pays to create confusion in your market! And that is exactly what Sigma has done here...

All in all, Bob - I think that Sigma isn't clear internally about what they want to do with this camera. And that translates into radically contradicting messages all within a span of what...a week?

My personal guess: they WANTED to create a 2-2.5K camera with a new sensor that would really create a positive impact on the community/market. And they wanted to do so with "image quality"...details and colors... Then the hard truth hit them - this sucker is so much more expensive to produce than they projected and they realized that they HAD to increase the price dramatically. Then the marketing folks took over - they got a "great idea" to try and change the profile of this camera as one that is a viable and attractive alternative to the MF crowd. Then they saw the reaction and now they are backpedaling.